A student of National Law University, Jodhpur has moved the Rajasthan High Court after he was denied two gold medals just minutes before the University's 17th convocation ceremony in February 2025.

The plea contends that the medals had the student's name inscribed on them and were listed against his name even in the official convocation brochure. The Rajasthan High Court is now examining the matter.

Justice Sunil Beniwal had issued notice in the matter on November 6, 2025.

The petitioner, Anuj Shukla, an LL.M. (IPR Laws) student of the 2023-24 batch, had been recommended for the Smt. Vandana Devendra Mehta Gold Medal for highest CGPA among LL.M. (IPR Laws) students and the Nani A Palkhivala Memorial Gold Medal for highest CGPA across all LL.M. streams.

The University's Gold Medal Committee recommended him on February 8, 2025, and the Academic Council approved the recommendations on February 15, 2025, over a week before the ceremony.

Allegedly, a few minutes before the convocation began, Shukla was told by the Controller of Examination (COE) that since he had applied for re-evaluation of a first semester answer sheet, he would not be receiving the gold medals.

The student had no prior intimation of this. When he requested a proper hearing, the COE refused. When he asked that the medals at least be held back until a hearing could be conducted, he was told to return to his seat as the Vice Chancellor (VC) was occupied with guests. Both medals were then awarded to another student from his batch, K Ankita Rao.

The re-evaluation concerned Shukla's answer sheet in Research Methodology, where his original marks of 82 out of 100 were reduced to 65 upon re-evaluation. The University had, however, issued him grade sheets retaining the original marks of 82, consistent with what the petitioner describes as an established practice of retaining original marks where the re-evaluated decrease is marginal.

On that basis, his cumulative score across both semesters stood at 875 out of 1000, with a CGPA of 9.19. The Gold Medal Committee's own minutes record that he had outscored K Ankita Rao.

A response obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information (RTI) Act revealed that a fresh Gold Medal Committee meeting had been convened at 9:30 AM on the morning of the convocation itself, after Ankita Rao approached the COE claiming the medals were being awarded erroneously. The Committee took an interim decision to redirect the medals to her. This decision was, however, approved by the Vice Chancellor only on February 25, 2025, two days after the medals had already been handed over at the ceremony.

The petitioner has argued that under Clause 15(k) of the Schedule to the National Law University Act, 1999, the power to award gold medals vests exclusively in the Academic Council. The reversal was never placed before the Academic Council and was without legal authority, he contends.

The alleged irregularities did not end there. A new Statement of Marks was issued to Shukla on March 17, 2025, bearing the date February 23, 2025. When he returned it and sought a correctly dated document, the request went unheeded. He has also alleged that he was informally warned that non-cooperation could result in adverse character certificates being issued against him.

Hence, Shukla filed a writ petition before the High Court, leading to the notice by Justice Beniwal. He has sought quashing of the decision of February 23, 2025, and the award of the medals as originally approved by the Academic Council.

The case has three respondents - the University, the academic council, and the student who received the medals instead of the petitioner. Notice is yet to be served on the third respondent, and the matter is expected to proceed fully once service is complete.

The matter now stands before Justice Sanjeet Purohit, who, on May 22, directed the University to complete instructions on the issuance of the petitioner's mark-sheet and listed the case the case for the second week of July.

The University is being represented by Advocate Shreyansh Mardia.

The petitioner is appearing in person at the current stage, having previously been represented by Advocate Nikhil Ajmera.